Madison v. Avery et al

Filing 66

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. On or before December 3, 2021, Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why this Court should not dismiss this action for failure to prosecute under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. Plaintiff is specifically advised that his failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in this Court dismissing this civil action without prejudice without further Order of the Court. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/18/2021. (trvo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 19-cv-2779-WJM-NYW
RODRICK D. MADISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW AVERY and
AVERY ASPHALT,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On August 27, 2021, the Court issued
an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Nina Y. Wang, which denied pro se Plaintiff Rodrick D. Madison’s Motion for Default
Judgment without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion for
default judgment to address the deficiencies identified in the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 65.) The Court did not set a deadline by which Plaintiff was required to file the
renewed motion for default judgment.
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a renewed motion for default
judgment, and there has been no activity in this case since the Court issued its August
27, 2021 Order.
Local Rule of Civil Practice 41.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, provides:
A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a
case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution or for
failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown
1

within the time set in the show cause order, a district judge or
a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may enter
an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.
D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. The Court cannot and does not act as an advocate for a pro se
party, see Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 672 (10th Cir. 1998), and a
party’s pro se status does not exempt him or her from complying with the procedural
rules that govern all civil actions filed in this District, namely, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Colorado, see Murray v. City
of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008). Indeed, “[a] district court
undoubtedly has discretion to sanction a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case,
or for failing to comply with local or federal procedural rules.” Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d
1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002). When issuing sanctions for failure to prosecute, “a district
court may, without abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any
particular procedures.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161
(10th Cir. 2007).
Given the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before December 3, 2021,
Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why this Court should not dismiss this action for
failure to prosecute under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. Plaintiff is specifically advised that
his failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will result in this Court
dismissing this civil action without prejudice without further Order of the Court.

2

Dated this 18th day of November, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3